Pure

Pure is about how a ten-year old boy in the West End of London (played by Harry Eden, in the best child performance I’ve seen in recent memory) deals with the heroin addiction of his mother (played by Canadian actress Molly Parker, who manages to convey both the clarity of sobriety and the fog of a drug high whenever the role requires her to do so).

I liked it, although I do think it could have been edited and directed in such a way that would have given the story a greater emotional effectiveness.

The film was released in Britain in 2002; the only reason the film got released on DVD in the United States here now was because Keira Knightley (who is misleadingly put on the cover art, but thankfully not on the DVD art) has a supporting role as a pregnant waitress, also a junkie, who befriends the boy.

She doesn’t have more than maybe 15 minutes screen time, if that, but it is probably her second best role, the first being “Jackie” in The Jacket, to which there is there is a slight similarity here. It makes me think that perhaps she should aim for roles which require less affability and more bitchiness (although not the psuedo-bitchiness of Domino).

She is 17 years old here (and you can see the acne in certain scenes!), befriending a 10 year old, and I found the friendship interesting because the boy is obviously keen on her in the way that boys sometimes are enamored of a young woman several years older. That happened to me on occasion as a boy, but this is maybe the first time I can recall seeing a film capture that feeling; and since I am keen on Keira as well, so I can understand what the boy feels! (She may be playing a crackhead here, but there are still moments when she’s downright adorable looking.)

Casino Royale

While the Bond character here is appropriately hard-boiled and roguish, he is totally lacking in charm. Daniel Craig does not seem like a upper-class bred spy, but a morally upright thug- or as one critic put it, “more Spetznatz thug than Oxbridge toff”.

The opening sequence is supposed to be about Bond’s second kill, which gets him 007 status. It’s a wasted opportunity, because (a) the first kill is shown intercut with the second, dissapating any tension that would rise by watching a fight, (b) because we have no background as to why he made his first kill or who the victim was, so there is no dramatic significance to the death, and (c) Craig already looks the kind of guy who’s killed someone before.

And Bond killing someone in a restroom that immaculate looking? Was the restroom in Scandanavia? Try having him kill someone in a Texas restroom, and that would be really disgusting. Of course, if someone is gettng killed in a disgusting Texas bathroom, then most likely you’re watching a Tarantino film. But a Scandanavian restroom- how “gritty” is that?

If the producers had wished to do an “origins” film, like Batman Begins, they should have invested more in the screenplay and characters.

There’s not even any opening James Bond fanfare!

The opening credits song is utterly forgettable (as most of them have been recently)- where are the naked silhouetted women? I miss Maurice Binder.

The first two films, Dr. No, and Thunderball, were a bit boring. The film that set the “Bond formula” was Goldfinger, which combined the gadgets, the exaggerated plots and villains, the dry humor, and a hero who was ruthless and could be taken seriously in such a way that was entertaining, but not too serious.

Too many times too many of these elements have been overblown so that the Bond films become parodies of themselves. Since the last film, Die Another Day, was an example of this, the producers have decided to “reboot” Bond, and make their mistakes in quite the opposite direction.

The villains are all colorless craggy faced Eurotrash, and we are treated to the world’s longest poker match, with too much exposition on what is happening for those who play poker and too little for those who don’t.

Q is nowhere to be seen, nor Miss Moneypenny.

And Daniel Craig has no chemistry with his love interest, Eva Green (although this would not be the first time a Bond chemistry has been forced. Besides, why does Bond need a agent to monitor his spending? If a real spy needed money to play in a high-stakes casino game, the optimal way to provide for it is to take it from money which was stolen on a covert operation, which would not be a concern of the treasury department.)

And yet, there is too much of an adherence to the formula for it to be an interesting character study.

All of these things could be overlooked if this were a good action film.
There are two ways one can go with action scenes: to make them visually innovative, or dramatically interesting. Rare is the talent that can do both equally well.

But the action scenes here are prosaically staged, edited, and directed. Especially in the first chase sequence, in which we are not even made privy to what is going on, who Bond is chasing and why- and if we don’t know why, why should we care?

How will it perform?

Well, boxofficemojo.com says:

Down 25 percent, Casino Royale was as impressive as Happy Feet, holding better than James Bond's previous Thanksgiving titles, GoldenEye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day, which each fell over 31 percent on this weekend. Casino Royale captured $30.8 million and, with $94.1 million in 10 days, has sold nine percent more tickets than GoldenEye, the last Bond reboot, through the same point.

But when I went to see it, there were only about seven other people, not so impressive even though it was a matinee showing, and none of them seemed that impressed…

Superman Returns

The long set-up to the point wherein Superman actually returns (from some half-baked venture at finding remnants of his home planet) dissipates the tension instead of building it up. The “money shot” sequence about 30 mintues or so into the film seemed a perfect opportunity for me to re-heat my pasta primavera.

Director Bryan Singer supposedly was trying to emulate and “re-imagine” the 1978 Christopher Reeve classic. One of the great things about that film which he seemed to have forgotten was its humour- this film, by contrast, is not funny, it’s ripe for parody, and it got me to start thinking about all sorts of questions surrounding the Superman premise:

Since he seemingly specializes primarily in stopping disasters (when he could be doing so much else), how does he divide his time?

If he stands for truth, justice, and the American way, what are his politics? Might it not be more likely that such a goody-goody might consider himself a “citizen of the world” and object to American intervention overseas?

Considering the publicity and worldwide awareness he is purported to have gathered, how would it possible for the Fortress of Solitude to remain hidden? Surely some paparazzi must have followed him there?

Does he ever comb his hair differently?

He claims in the film he can hear everything, but if he really did hear everything the cacophony would drive him crazy.

How does he “turn on” the beams from his eyes?

How can he breathe in space?

Is there anything too heavy for Superman? Because he has to lift up a very, very large rock formation toward the end of the film, and it appears that he is straining a bit. It is that just supposed to give the audience a sense of the weightfulness of the object? Or does Superman actually have to exercise a degree of effort to do such things, as it would seem he would have to, if the law of physics have any relevancy.

When did he lose his virgnity, and to whom?

If he concieved a child with Lois Lane, would the child only have half his powers?

Oh yeah, and Superman’s kid in the film is very weird! He reminds me of that preternaturally precocious kid from The Ring movies. Doesn’t the director know kids in movies are supposed to be to cute, especially if they are intended to elicit the sympathy of the audience? Now, I don’t mind the subversion of that convention, but if you’re going to make the kid weird, you should also at least make him interesting as well.

How susceptible is Superman to old age and sickness?

Might the Man of Steel need Viagra someday? Or maybe Enzyte?

Although lead actor Brandon Routh looks the part, he is souless and humourless.

Kevin Spacey at times seems to be trying to imitate Gene Hackman, but I can’t be quite sure that’s what he intended.

Kate Bosworth is miscast as Lois Lane- she hasn’t got Margot Kidder’s spunk, giving instead the same petulant line delivery she did as the surfer in Blue Crush. She’s also way too young for the role. Lane is supposed to be a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Bosworth’s how old? And you can tell she’s not a mother. In the scene where she goes on board Lex Luthor’s submarine, she has her child by the hand, but never once looks at him to see his reactions, whether he is curious, scared, skeptical, and a real mother would never not do that, and a real actor’s director would not fail to point that out to Bosworth.

After being in development hell for over a decade, this is all we get?

I read recently that in one series of Superman comics, Lex Luthor became President of the United States. Now, to have Superman return, and have him find that to be the state of affairs, that would have been far more interesting that the rehashed world-in-peril-from-natural disaster scenario that the scriptwriters decided upon here.

Crank

Without exaggeration, one of the worst films I've ever seen.

I knew from the outset it was going to be bad, once that abominable metal music began.

The premise of the plot has been done before (though I am at a loss to remember titles). The execution could have been played for comedy, satire, drama, or viscerality. Instead, the overheated direction and editing reminded me of a particular CSI: Miami episode about someone re-enacting one of those gang-banger vice-squad type video games, and that is exactly what the film feels like.

I like Amy Smart, who plays the girlfriend, but I was ashamed and embarassed for her that she would stoop to such an undignified level such as she does here and for the sake of what is an artless film.

Jason Statham was truly heroic in The Transporter films, and I was very disappointed in him personally to assent to act in this trash. The amorality of his character is appalling; why does he have to be a hitman? Could he not as easily been made a police officer or a member of the military targeted for assassination? This could have been Transporter 3, which is why I went to watch it and what I was expecting from it.

And I hate the ending- although I could respect the finale if the filmmakers had invested depth to their characters, in the context of such shallowness, it only seals the filmmakers intentions as cheap, gross, jaded, and nihilistic.